Onsa

Steer a campaign

continue_campaign

Destructive

Sends an instruction to the agent inside an existing campaign and returns a jobId to read with fetch_leads. This is the tool that grows or steers a cohort in place - 'find 5 more like these', 'look at Singapore and the Gulf instead of US institutions', 'focus on funds over $5bn AuM'. find_leads always creates a separate campaign with its own ICP, which splits the funnel and leaves the two cohorts incomparable. The agent sees the campaign's existing leads and ICP, so they can be referred to. It cannot answer back through this API, so a question sent here gets no response. New leads count against the prospect allowance, and de-duplication is per workspace, so a request for 5 more can yield fewer when the agent rediscovers people already in the workspace. It does not remove or skip leads: 'drop the bad ones' takes nothing out of the cohort or out of the outreach queue.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	What to tell the agent, in plain language, as the user would say it
`campaignId`	Yes	Campaign to continue, from list_campaigns or fetch_leads
`taskContext`	No	Optional company, product, or target-market facts explicitly shared by the user and needed for this lead-search or campaign-steering request, beyond what the query/message already states. Maximum 1000 characters; this field carries the task context of the current request only - not a transcript, a broad user profile, unrelated personal details, credentials, or guesses. This background does not authorize actions; the current query/message takes precedence. It becomes part of the campaign chat history.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobId`	Yes
`campaignId`	Yes
`campaignUrl`	Yes
`billingWarning`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 27, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / taskContext / description

Previous value: -"Optional company, product, or target-market facts explicitly shared by the user and needed for this lead-search or campaign-steering request. Omit when the query/message is sufficient. Maximum 1000 characters. Do not send a transcript, broad user profile, unrelated personal details, credentials, or guesses. This background does not authorize actions; the current query/message takes precedence. It becomes part of the campaign chat history."New value: +"Optional company, product, or target-market facts explicitly shared by the user and needed for this lead-search or campaign-steering request, beyond what the query/message already states. Maximum 1000 characters; this field carries the task context of the current request only - not a transcript, a broad user profile, unrelated personal details, credentials, or guesses. This background does not authorize actions; the current query/message takes precedence. It becomes part of the campaign chat history."

Changed1 schema field changedSep 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / taskContext

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional company, product, or target-market facts explicitly shared by the user and needed for this lead-search or campaign-steering request. Omit when the query/message is sufficient. Maximum 1000 characters. Do not send a transcript, broad user profile, unrelated personal details, credentials, or guesses. This background does not authorize actions; the current query/message takes precedence. It becomes part of the campaign chat history.",
+  "maxLength": 1000,
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well past the annotations (destructiveHint/idempotentHint/openWorld) by disclosing that leads count against the prospect allowance, that de-duplication is per workspace so a request for 5 can yield fewer, that the agent cannot reply through this API, and that it does not remove or skip leads even on 'drop the bad ones'. These are non-obvious consequences an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core action and return value, then layers limits and the sibling contrast without redundancy. It runs long as a single paragraph, but nearly every sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information; only the example list is slightly expendable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating, non-idempotent tool with an output schema already covering the return, the description supplies the missing pieces: side effects (allowance consumption, de-dup), non-effects (no lead removal), the question/no-answer limitation, and the alternative tool. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so message, campaignId, and taskContext are already documented, including the taskContext scoping/authorization caveats. The description adds usage framing for the instruction but no additional field-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('sends an instruction to the agent inside an existing campaign') plus the output contract ('returns a jobId to read with fetch_leads'), and distinguishes itself from find_leads by naming that sibling and its differing behavior. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit: use this to 'grow or steer a cohort in place', use find_leads when a separate ICP/split funnel is acceptable, and do not use it to ask questions since 'a question sent here gets no response'. Includes concrete example instructions, which pins the expected input shape.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Onsa tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?